TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The Commissioner in the impugned order holds that the sale price at which M/s. BPCL sold the product to other Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) should be considered as normal transaction value and interest at appropriate rate would also be payable under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The matter mainly pertains to the issue - "Whether duty of Central Excise is payable on the Refinery Gate Price (RGP) paid by the Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) to the appellant or it is payable on the subsidized price at which the Oil Marketing Companies so sell the goods (SKO - Superior Kerosene Oil) under PDS and LPG - Liquid Petroleum Gas (Domestic) to their consumers?" 4.1 The appellant also refers to another minor issue n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) • Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited v. State of UP - 1996 (101) STC 487 (All.) • TISCO General Office Recreation Club v. State of Bihar - 2002 (126) STC 547 (SC) • Neyveli Liginite Corporation Ltd. v. CTO - 2001 (124) STC 586. 7. The learned AR on behalf of the respondent-Revenue inter alia pleads as follows : (i) The appellant, KRL paying duty at subsidized price whereas it is receiving the full price from Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). (ii) The duty is payable on the full price collected from Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). (iii) The subsidized value/price collected from the consumer by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) cannot be taken as assessable value fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise duty?" 9.1.1 We find that as per the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), inclusion or exclusion of terminal charges in the transaction value for the purpose of assessment is no longer an issue when it is on record that the amount being paid by the Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) to the appellant - KRL already includes terminal charges in their payments made for the subject goods. Therefore, when we decide the main issue given above in Paragraphs 4 and 9, there is no need to give separate findings and decision on this minor issue. 10. The duty of Central Excise is charged on the transaction value as mentioned in Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 4(1) is reproduced below for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arged on this price, which is the subsidized price. 10.1.1 The provisions of Section 4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, are very clear. These provisions state about the following elements of the assessable value/transaction value : (i) The sale of the goods by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal; (ii) The assessee and the buyer are not related; and (iii) Price is the sole consideration for sale. 10.1.2 In the present case, the transaction value would be the price, where above three elements/conditions are present or fulfilled. We find that above three elements are present in the case of the amount/the price paid by OMCs (other than the BPCL). The price which is charged by the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ull consideration, which is in the category of 'sole consideration', is paid by the buyer OMCs and received by the seller appellant and that only can be taken as assessable value (transaction value) for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. In the present case, subsidized price is not the sole consideration; therefore, it is not the 'transaction value' for the purpose of charging Central Excise duty. 10.3 The appellant submits that the Central Board of Excise & Customs (C.B.E. & C.) issued clarification Circulars saying that the subsidized price is to be taken as assessable value. However, when the provisions relating to valuation given in the Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are very clear, this submission of t....